• What did Voltaire mean when he said that "if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him"?

    This statement was made as part of his larger argument that the existence of God and/or belief in God are beneficial and necessary for civilized society to function. The larger context of the debate in which he was engaged at the time indicates that he did not intend this statement to be an ironic quip essentially claiming that God is fictional, as it is commonly used today.

    In fact, the statement was made as part of a piece that he wrote condemning and refuting an atheistic essay called "The Three Imposters".

    Voltaire is also known for many memorable aphorisms, such as: "Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer" ("If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him"), contained in a verse epistle from 1768, addressed to the anonymous author of a controversial work, "The Three Impostors." But far from being the cynical remark it is often taken for, it was meant as a retort to the atheistic clique.

    The first verse seems to be attempting to refute the argument that evil and suffering in the world should be considered evidence against the existence of God:

    Insipid writer, you pretend to draw for your readers
    The portraits of your 3 impostors;
    How is it that, witlessly, you have become the fourth?
    Why, poor enemy of the supreme essence,
    Do you confuse Mohammed and the Creator,
    And the deeds of man with God, his author?...
    Criticize the servant, but respect the master.
    God should not suffer for the stupidity of the priest:
    Let us recognize this God, although he is poorly served.

    The second verse ties this into his thesis that belief in God is necessary for society:

    My lodging is filled with lizards and rats;
    But the architect exists, and anyone who denies it
    Is touched with madness under the guise of wisdom.
    Consult Zoroaster, and Minos, and Solon,
    And the martyr Socrates, and the great Cicero:
    They all adored a master, a judge, a father.
    This sublime system is necessary to man.
    It is the sacred tie that binds society,
    The first foundation of holy equity,
    The bridle to the wicked, the hope of the just.

    The third verse is the one that contains the oft-quoted line. In this larger context, it seems clear that he intended the statement to be an argument in favor of belief in God. He does not seem to say here whether he thinks God actually exists, but rather he argues merely that belief in God is a good thing and atheism is bad for society.

    If the heavens, stripped of his noble imprint,
    Could ever cease to attest to his being,
    If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
    Let the wise man announce him and kings fear him.
    Kings, if you oppress me, if your eminencies disdain
    The tears of the innocent that you cause to flow,
    My avenger is in the heavens: learn to tremble.
    Such, at least, is the fruit of a useful creed.

  • Yes, or fundamental questions remain unanswered. Apply critical thinking to science as well. Don't believe them blindly.

    Where did existence come from?
    This is a question science can't answer; a question the religions of the world have a least attempted to answer. Scientists are human beings who see the way the universe works. Unfortunately, they spin that into knowing why the universe exist. But explaining how something works isn't the same as why it exist or where it came from.
    Science used to say the universe came out of nothingness. But that theory is bogus. Human's instinctively know you can't get something out of nothing at the time of the big bang, because there's no physical place where nothingness can exist. Nothingness can only be an abstract concept, like zero. Yet scientist work hard to get people to accept this impossible concept. As soon as nothingness is able to produce something, it's no longer nothingness. But instead of saying the universe came from God, they say it came from nothingness.
    Consider the expanding big bang. If space / time didn't exist before or outside the big bang, where did the space / time for the big bang to expand into come from?
    All this talk about a multiverse containing many universes just means that galaxies are no longer the largest units, now things the size of universes are the largest units. Instead of the universe being the thing that contains all existance, the multiverse is the things that contains all existance. So where did the multiverse come from, then? Is it also in something else?

  • Reasoning says yes!

    Without a designer, irrationality would abound.

    Let us take the anthropic principle for example. It presents an unproven multiverse, one of which has hosted life. But this attempt to explain away the obvious design of life has been philosophically wanting. Another is abiogenesis. This presents a biological life occurring from non-living material. Proponents argue that abiogenesis has been shown experimentally. But wouldn't humans engaging in such an experiment only show without a doubt that some level of intervention would have been necessary for abiogenesis to have occurred at all.

    There is therefore no rational way to present the designed without the designer.

  • Of course! Creation cannot exists without creator.

    God is the Only creator of this universe. If he will mot have to exists then nothing will be here at first place.
    Creation can't come into existence without creator. There is not a single case where anything has come into existence at its own.
    The very idea of God is clear, we say God in everything from the nature to life to death.
    If considered, anything can be ignored but we do have brain to use as much as needed. So, when we go deep into the thought, it comes clear that God's existence is fact.

  • He does if we exist.

    We know that many factors are required for our existence. Some of these factors are qualities of the universe, such as the fact that it has a low enough entropy for any energy-consuming process like life to run continuously, even though chance and natural processes always favour higher entropy. Some factors are more local, such as the existence of DNA and proteins in the cells of living things, neither of which would function for long without the other, and hence each cannot have come into existence alone - yet the only known way, consistent with all human experience, for two interdependent parts to come into existence at the same time is for them to be designed by someone for some purpose. To conclude that this didn't happen in the case of living things would be throwing all our rational knowledge out the window. Clearly living things were designed. One could argue they were designed by some other physical lifeform, but that just prolongs the question to what made them, and further does not answer the earlier questions about the universe. Only an eternal God makes sense as an answer to these questions and others.

  • Why does he need to?

    God is technically a noun that means someone that you worship. But God doesn't have to exist. If you do good things for the sake of doing good things, then why would you need a god to tell you to do good things? Plus, there isn't evidence a god exists anyway.

  • Of course not.

    There is nothing in our universe that suggests any deity does exist, much less that one "has to". Most people who try to argue that there MUST be a god utilize the Argument from Ignorance or Argument from Personal Incredulity fallacies- the "I don't get how it works, therefore goddidit" argument.
    Clearly this argument was flawed in primitive times when man posited that angry gods must be responsible for earthquakes and tornadoes, and it's just as flawed when theists posit that a god must be responsible for the origin of our universe.

    The only conclusion that we can draw when we don't know how something works or happens is- that we don't know. Yet.

  • No, I don't believe so.

    Before science, religion was used to explain everything. Why the leaves changed colors and why it rained for example. They used god to fill in the gaps of their knowledge. Then science came along and started proving religious beliefs wrong. Science has shrunk the room for god so much that we don't need him to explain the majority of the universe. Now there is only a few (major) holes in our understanding of the universe. Now the only place for god is at the beginning of the Universe. Seeing this ongoing trend of proving super-naturalism wrong, there is no doubt in my mind that one day science will fill in the gap where god currently resides.

  • Everything that God is supposed to have done is explained otherwise.

    The Big Bang is the leading cosmological model for the creation of the universe, which shows how permanently pre-existent uncaused gravitational spacetime expanded into the cosmic thermodynamic system that is the universe. Evidence for the Big Bang is seen in CMBs such as the B-mode polarization, measured at 150 GHz in the POLARBEAR experiment. The Big Bang could have been caused by uncaused quantum fluctuations, changes in the cosmic energy density that allow the virtual creation of mass by mass-energy equivalence and hence gravity. There is no evidence for the definitive existence of teleology. Hence, God does not *need* to exist.

  • God is a creation of the human imagination

    Have any of you ever heard of apophenia? It's the defined as the inclination in humans to search for (and find) patterns in series of data, even if no patterns exist. Essentially, the need to find meaning in the void, and to find a purpose in life. This basically explains why people ever believed in God in the first place. The human brain is sufficiently evolved so that it longs to know, and to understand, and to make sense of the world around it. But primitive people didn't know enough to explain the world around them, so they created God. They thought him up. God is the equivalent of the "theory of everything" that science is always trying to find, an explanation sufficient to appease primitive apophenic minds. That is all. The only reason God 'exists' is because humanity wanted him too.

  • Nobody HAS no exist

    Nobody has to exist they just do Earth doesn't have to exist but it does just the same for God. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .

  • No but maybe religion does

    No God does not have to exist. People can be good without a God for one. Japan has a relatively low murder rate and that is not because everyone believes in God there are more human factors at play.

    Religion on the other hand I think should exist. It provides a social network for people. It helps keep people alive {one of the reasons cited for the Seventh-Day Adventist's longer on average life expectancy that live in one part of California}. Those that go to church tend to volunteer and donate at a greater rate which has a positive impact on the world. The Catholic Church provides jobs to a lot of people {religious and the non-religious} benefiting society.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.